The founding of West Virginia during the Civil War created a
unique state heritage that has generated conflicting historical
interpretations. An early generation of scholars placed the
emergence of West Virginia in the context of East-West struggles
within the nation and the state. Echoing the ideas of Frederick
Jackson Turner's "frontier thesis" that American movement westward
fostered democratic development, these scholars set the founding of
West Virginia in the democratic nationalism of the West.1 A few
years later, a new generation of historians rejected the optimistic
environmental determinism of Turner in favor of the sectional
economic conflict theory of Charles A. Beard. This group argued
that West Virginia was a natural outcome of the struggle between
opposing societies--one an oligarchical, agrarian society based on
slavery, the other an urbanizing, industrial society based on free
labor.2 Each of these approaches relied upon a dialectic of
opposites, reflecting perhaps the dominant bipolar thought deeply
lodged in Western thought. These macrohistorical models have been
expanded and modified by later studies. Beard's interpretation of
the Civil War as the Second American Revolution still has its
proponents, and the influence of Turner on his student Charles H.
Ambler had a long-term impact on West Virginia historical studies.
Each theory inspired studies of pro-union or pro-secessionist
behavior of western Virginians.3

Richard O. Curry used quantitative history to study the question
of statehood and secession within West Virginia. Analyzing county
voting results, Curry demonstrated that pro-secessionist majorities
existed in one-half of the counties and 40 percent of the
inhabitants of the land that became West Virginia favored
secession. His analysis emphasized the political-cultural
realignment taking place in the southwestern counties after 1828.4
Recently, Kenneth Noe confirmed Curry's argument about the
political transformation of southwestern Virginia inhabitants, but
Noe uses modernization theory as an explanatory model for the
changes and conflicts occurring in the western counties of
Virginia. The Virginia and Tennessee Railroad became the
technological link that tied two differing cultural regions
together, Noe argues, and it changed southwestern Virginians
between 1830 and 1860 into defenders of Southern interests in
slavery and the cash crop. Effectively depicting the limited,
organized military operations in the state, Noe characterized the
Civil War in western Virginia as predominantly one of "mountain
fire-fights, ruthless guerilla raids, random violence, confused
loyalties, and desolation. . . ." It was a "brutal affair" that
brought glory or fame to few.5

Feelings of loyalty and why individuals change those feelings
are crucial to understanding the behavior of people in war,
particularly civil war. John W. Shaffer examined in detail the
loyalty conflicts in Barbour County. He believes the primary factor
determining allegiance was family heritage, Northern or Virginian.
Shaffer limits the import of his extensive data by restricting his
context to "an essentially political struggle over secession."6
Seeds of sectional conflict in Barbour County, according to
Shaffer, were sown decades before the war via migration of peoples
with contrasting cultural heritages into the region, one Northern
and one Virginian. A careful student, Shaffer does not elaborate on
the elements in, or compare differences between, these distinct
cutural heritages. A broadened cultural conflict approach to the
study of loyalty, North and South, may yet arise from the data
offered by Shaffer.

Civil liberty, a cornerstone of democratic cultures, is a civil
process endangered by war. The Union and the Confederacy sought to
maintain civil liberty while simultaneously demanding loyalty from
their citizens. The celebrated Civil War cases of John Merryman,
Lambdin P. Milligan, and Clement Vallandingham in the Union or
William G. "Parson" Brownlow in the Confederacy have been analyzed
extensively and cited in textbooks.7 On the issue of loyalty George
Frederickson contended that Northern intellectuals during the war
transformed notions of loyalty based upon "constitutional liberty"
into the idea of "unconditional loyalty."8 Intellectuals during the
Civil War were capable of requiring "unconditional loyalty" at the
expense of civil liberty. Using an empirical approach which relied
less on intellectuals, Daniel Crofts in Reluctant
Confederates documented the various forms of loyalty to the
Union in Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina between November
1860 and April 1861.9 Crofts findings suggest that loyalties
shifted in response to external events.

Mark Neely, Jr. also has raised new questions and suggested new
research directions on issues of loyalty and civil liberty during
the Civil War.10 Neely s work, while sensitive to constitutional
theory, concentrates on arrest records, how and why individuals
were arrested, and how the process worked in the North and South.
He finds that presidents Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were
quite similar in their approach to civil liberties.11 Both were
practical problem solvers who used arrests of civilians and
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as tools of war. In his
survey of the literature, Neely found that studies of habeas corpus
in the Confederacy neglected to name a single civilian who had been
arrested by Confederate military authorities. To fill this void,
Neely compiled the records of 2,672 civilians arrested by the
Confederate military.12 The total number of civilians arrested in
the Confederacy, he argues, when adjusted for population
differences, appears to be about the same as the number arrested in
the Union. These civilian arrests were concentrated near the
borders with the enemy just as they were in the North, and
President Davis faced sharp dissent from residents of western
Virginia, eastern Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri
just as President Lincoln did from the "copperheads" of the middle
west and certain ethnic groups in Pennsylvania and New York.13
Although Neely is not an alarmist on the issue of civil liberty,
his work suggests that both governments used their power to demand
and enforce a culture of loyalty.

Issues of loyalty and civil liberty and how to respond to them
engaged Fayette County residents in a complex range of thoughts,
feelings, and behavior. An examination of select Fayette County
residents in conjunction with a detailed study of James B. Hamilton
permits some comparisons and contrasts of individual reasons for
decisions on loyalty and behavior. Loyal behavior, however, is
affected by governmental policies and practices, so the treatment
of Fayette County civilians by the Confederacy needs examination.14
The cases presented here suggest not only which civilians were
arrested for disloyalty and why but also how Confederate policy and
practice regarding loyalty evolved in a locale where citizens had
divided loyalties. A profile of the county in 1860, drawn from the
census, points to similarities and differences extant among the
residents on the eve of war.

Fayette County's population in 1860 comprised 5,997 people
living in 1,005 households that were diversified in occupation,
wealth, and cultural origins. The overwheling majority of the
population, 97.2 percent, were born in Virginia, usually in
Nicholas or Greenbrier counties from which Fayette County had been
carved in part. Of the 164 people, 2.8 percent, not born in
Virginia, 29 had been born outside the United States--11 in
England, 8 in Germany, 5 in Scotland, 4 in Ireland, and 1 in
Canada. Of residents migrating to Fayette County from other states,
New York with 34 and Massachusetts with 20 led the free states in
origins of in-migration, while North Carolina with 16 and Maryland
with 10 provided the largest number of in-migrants from slave
states.15 New England migrants came to the Mt. Cove District in the
early 1850s when a religious utopian community was established near
Mt. Cove under the guidance of Thomas Lake Harris, a spiritualist
who taught direct communion with the dead.16

Churches were central cultural institutions in the rural,
mountain county that was moving toward a town-centered culture.
There were twenty-five churches in the county: fifteen Methodist,
eight Missionary Baptist, one Christian Baptist, and one Dunkard. A
sharp cleavage within the Methodist churches had occurred. Ten of
the Methodist churches had affiliated with the Methodist Church
South, five with the Methodist Church North. This two-to-one
pro-South division in the Methodist church signaled the ominous
cleavage within the most important institution in the county prior
to the Civil War.17

Farming occupied the majority of Fayette County heads of
households, but farming varied in importance across the four county
districts. The Kanawha District, located largely on the west side
of Gauley Mountain along the Kanawha River, contained the largest
industries and most of the modernizing occupations--agents,
superintendents, engineers, coal diggers, etc. The Forest Hill
Mining and Manufacturing Company, capitalized and staffed by
English professionals, annually produced fifty-two thousand barrels
of refined coal oil and employed over forty men. This
industrializing district also had the largest percentage of heads
of household with no real estate and the least number of farming
households, 55.4 percent. In the Fayetteville and Mt. Cove
districts, located on the plateau and separated by the New River,
farm households, 72.8 percent and 75.8 percent respectively,
prospered while the towns of Fayetteville and Mt. Cove grew in
importance. Sewell Mountain, the easternmost district, had 82
percent of its households farming the county's least productive
land. It also had the largest percentage of landless farm laborers
whose livelihood depended upon seasonal farm work or bee hunting,
fishing, and hunting/trapping.18

The county's 64 slaveholders owned 271 slaves, 4.5 percent of
the population, and constituted a significant part of the county
elite.19 These men held a large part of the county s wealth, and
they exerted a powerful influence on county governance at
Fayetteville which predominantly favored secession in 1861.20
Unionism was strongest in the Kanawha District where merchants and
manufacturers had tied their economic and cultural interests to the
Ohio River via the crucial transportation link along the Kanawha
River.

When war came, citizens had to decide their loyalty to the state
or to the Union. A typical response was that of Robert Augustus
"Gus" Bailey (1839-63) of Fayetteville. A promising young attorney
and son of Circuit Court Judge Edward B. Bailey, Gus Bailey was a
captain in the 142nd Regiment of the local militia. Enlisting in
June 1861, Bailey was elected captain of the Fayetteville Rifles
and participated in the West Virginia campaigns of 1861-62. Cited
for bravery, he won promotin to major. At the battle of Droop
Mountain in 1863, Bailey received a mortal wound while trying to
rally his men. Loyal to Virginia, Bailey represents one model of
loyal behavior in 1861.21 Why he committed himself to Virginia is
not known with certainty, but his father was part of the Virginia
legal system. Paralleling Bailey's response to war but with an
opposite loyalty was W. T. Timberlake. A dedicated Union loyalist,
Timberlake volunteered to serve in the United States army, rose to
the rank of captain and survived the war to become the first
Fayette County superintendent of schools. Bailey and Timberlake
represent similar behavior in their commitment to enter the
military to fight, and had either been captured, they would have
been treated as military prisoners of war.22

Fayette County, however, had its opponents of war. Among them
were the Dunkards, a German Baptist sect later called Brethren, who
were firmly committed to peace and had been opposed to slavery
since 1782. Although the exact size of the Fayette County
congregation is not known, the Dunkard church could accommodate six
hundred people, the largest church building in the county in
1860.23 One Dunkard minister was imprisoned by Confederates for
preaching a doctrine of peace, although members of the church
usually did not involve themselves in affairs of state or resort to
the courts to resolve conflict.24

Northern and Southern refugees also need study as to their
loyalties and the impact of their out-migration. What they did,
what happened to them, and how their property was handled have not
received sufficient attention. Laban Gwinn, one Fayette County
refugee to the Union, has been thoughtfully examined by Eugene Cox,
but many more such studies are needed.25 One significant refugee
group comprised former members of the spiritualist community
located near Mt. Cove. Migrating to Fayette County from upstate New
York and Massachusetts between 1849 and 1852, these "Yankee
families" became successful merchants and farmers after their
utopian community dispersed. With the onset of war, the Hopping
family sought refuge in the Union but asked the Hunt family, who
remained, to look after their property.26 George Hunt was among the
first men in the county arrested and imprisoned for disloyalty by
Confederates. While her husband was imprisoned, Nancy Hunt managed
the farm and cared for the Hopping property. After some months in
prison, George Hunt swore an oath of loyalty to Virginia, the
implication being that he would not commit overt pro-Union acts.
The Hunts four sons fled to Ohio to avoid Confederate conscription.
There the four young men eventually joined the Union army and
served until the war ended. Pro-Union in thought and feeling but
inactive in overt behavior against Virginia, George and Nancy Hunt
represent a group of people who were subject to foraging from both
sides in the war.27

The experiences of Otey Fellows and Kennedy Cassady show yet
another dimension in the range of loyal thought and behavior. Otey
Fellows moved onto Big Laurel Creek in the Fayetteville District
after wedding Mary Cassady. He and his children farmed the
homestead while two older sons worked as day laborers on nearby
farms. Too old to enter the military, Otey divided his loyalties.
Three of his sons joined Confederate General Henry Wise's Legion;
after one was killed in the battle on Scary Creek, the other two
sons came home and later joined the Union army. Confederates
considered the Fellows, the Cassadys, and other families living on
Big Laurel Creek near Cassady s mill to be pro-Union since James
Cassady formed a Union Home Guard unit and became a county
political leader in the formation of West Virginia.28

The Cassadys of Big Laurel Creek thus became a
military-political target for Confederate raids during 1861. To
capture disloyalists, Confederates sent a "former Yankee" into the
little community to talk to residents to determine loyalties. The
"Yankee"talked to Otey Fellows about a raid which had resulted in
the capture of Kennedy Cassady. Otey replied that if he knew the
raiding party had been "Sam Woods and his damned bunch of rebels,"
he would have fired upon them. Months later, under interrogation by
a military commissioner, Otey complained that he did not know the
man was not a "Yankee." He lamented that his brothers-in-law, James
and Kennedy Cassady, were loyal to the Union, but his sympathies
were really pro-Southern. Still, "he had to walk a tightrope since
he did not want to support either side." The commissioner decided
that under the influence of his in-laws this "old man desires to
hold with both sides" so he should be held as a prisoner of war.29
Imprisoned although not charged with an overt act of disloyalty,
Fellows had engaged in "disloyal" speech so he was a "disloyal
Virginian." Otey seems to have had a "go along to get along"
mentality, and he may well have felt pressure to adjust his views
to those of the Cassadys. His usual practice, it appears, was
constantly to adjust his views to fit his particular situation.

Kennedy Cassady, Fellows's brother-in-law, surrendered to a
group of Caskie's raiders the night prior to Otey Fellows's arrest.
Ordained a Methodist preacher in 1858, Cassady, his wife, and five
children lived in his two hundred-dollar-homeplace on Big Laurel
Creek. Prior to the war he rode the circuit, preaching throughout
the county. After his arrest, Cassady vehemently denied belonging
to the Home Guard unit formed by his brother James but admitted he
had once passed through Union lines to hear a representative of the
Wheeling government speak. The commissioner s judgment rested
heavily upon information received from the raiding party.30

In order to entice the Cassadys from their mill, the raiders
whistled the "sounds of the whippoorwill and the owl" to imitate
the Home Guard since these calls were "signals of the Tories."
Kennedy Cassady responded that he had heard those sounds but
thought it was just Otey Fellows's boys trying to scare him. He was
at the mill simply to take advantage of high water to grind corn.
When he heard shots nearby, he picked up a musket that was hidden
in the mill and started home but was arrested as he crossed the
bridge. Damaging evidence against Cassady was the musket. Engraved
upon it was the name "Princess Anne." Such muskets, it was charged,
must have come from the Confederate cache abandoned by General Wise
during his retreat from the county. Cassady claimed that it had
been brought back from the Confederate army by one of the Fellows
boys. Unimpressed with Cassady's explanations, the commissioner
issued an intriguing judgment: "This man is obviously part negro .
. . a man of fine natural intellect, self-possessed, artful and
insensible to the obligations of an oath. I recommend that he be
held as a prisoner."31

Kennedy Cassady held anti-secessionist views and he likely
preached sermons favoring the Union, but he appears to have been
convicted for his association with his brother James as much as any
act he may have committed against the Confederacy. His experience
exemplifies the taking of political prisoners by Confederate raids
aimed at extinguishing Fayette civilian support for the movement
toward statehood.

Samuel B. Koontz represents yet another variation in loyal
behavior. Prior to the war, Koontz, a farmer in the Mt. Cove
District, served as an officer in the 142nd Virginia Militia. Upon
Virginia's secession, Koontz remained loyal to the Union but was
inactive during 1861-62. In February 1863, Koontz accepted a
commission as first lieutenant from Francis Pierpont, governor of
the Restored Government of Virginia. The legal and political
structure in the county had fallen into such disorder, however,
that Koontz could not locate a justice of the peace who would
administer the necessary oath for him legally to assume his new
military post. Two different justices refused to administer the
oath for fear of Koontz being captured by Southern partisans. If
captured, Koontz's legal documents would reveal the justices
allegiance to the Union and expose them to partisan atack.32 That
the threat was real is confirmed by the capture of Koontz. He was
taken by raiders sent into Fayette County by General John Echols
with the specific purpose of arresting those civilians who had been
denounced by refugees.33

Koontz, without the legal documents, had begun to recruit fellow
German Americans into his unit, and he unsuccessfully tried to
recruit James B. Hamilton. On June 5, 1863, Echols s raiding party
captured Koontz near his home. Koontz maintained that he was a
Union soldier. He had remained inactive until 1863, and his renewed
pro-Union activity apparently was related to the Confederate arrest
and imprisonment of one of his relatives.34 Arrested as a
"traitorous Virginian," Koontz first was imprisoned in Castle
Thunder in Richmond. A year later, Koontz was transferred from
Castle Thunder to Libby Prison for Union soldiers, a recognition of
his claim that he was a military prisoner of war.35

Castle Thunder prison, a group of three commercial buildings
impressed into use by Confederates in 1862, housed deserters,
civilians, and political prisoners. Two wings were set aside, one
for African Americans and one for women prisoners. Designed for
fourteen hundred people, it held almost three thousand when Koontz
and James B. Hamilton arrived. Koontz worked in the hospital while
at Castle Thunder, and his transfer to Libby Prison indicated his
recategorization as a Union soldier. Hamilton, a political
prisoner, continued to believe that he would be released from
Castle Thunder. James Hamilton's story yields details of life in
Fayette County in the Civil War era and shows the complexity of the
loyalty question.36

James B. Hamilton (1830-64), son of Thomas B. and Elizabeth
Hamilton, was born in Nicholas County, Virginia, in 1830. His
family moved from Summersville to Hawk's Nest shortly after the
formation of Fayette County, where his father established a
successful law practice. Thomas Hamilton built an estate between
1841 and 1854 which, at its largest, consisted of 526 acres
stretching from just east of the Hawk's Nest overlook to New River.
Thomas earned part of his livelihood by clearing land titles for
public and private interests.37 In 1837, he received an appointment
from the county court to survey, locate, and mark the route for a
road from Fayetteville to the James River and Kanawha Turnpike by
the most convenient and desirable way. Quickly built, Miller's
Ferry across New River at the mouth of Mill Creek had access roads
traversing the Hamilton lands.38

When James was six years old, his parents opened an inn, legally
described as "a house of private entertainment," at their home on
the turnpike. The inn later became the first Hawk s Nest post
office. James learned of the wider world by conversing with
travelers staying at the inn. Tutored largely by his father, James
studied the Bible, read published sermons, and learned some of
Benjamin Franklin's teachings. From these studies, he developed a
penchant for reflection and self-criticism as well as a streak of
independence. His later writings reveal a man who had doubts about
the righteousness of his own actions but one who sought to act in
accordance with ethical principles.39

Entering the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1847, James
ranked in the middle of his class during his one year and eight
months there. His grades in French and mathematics were stronger
than those in geography, but only three members of his class had
more demerits than he did for lapses in military conduct. In his
mind and behavior James was better prepared for academics than he
was for the rigors of military disciplin. In May 1849, he was
court-martialed and publicly dismissed from VMI for being absent
without permission and then denying it.40 He returned to his home,
surely with feelings of failure and disgrace, but he used his study
of surveying at VMI to become a skilled land surveyor in Fayette
and Greenbrier counties while working the family farm. He also
clerked at Eli Wood's store located some two miles away in
Woodville, later Ansted. His interest in education led him to tutor
local children in the three "R s," and teaching provided his family
with income during the winter months when surveying was often
impractical

. James eventually built his own schoolhouse and named it the
Independence School, perhaps reflecting his approach to education.
He participated in church services, lyceums, and public meetings
held in his schoolhouse which became an educational and cultural
center at Hawk's Nest. In the winter months Hamilton taught, on
average, twenty-five students in a three-month term. Occasionally,
he mused in his diary about his own failings as "serving the
Devil," but January resolves promised renewed efforts to seek
grace.41

Hamilton's diary reveals a man primarily concerned with the
teachings of Christianity and a self-critical reflection on his
behavior. He commented upon the sermons that he read, and he often
cited the exact text of the Bible from which a sermon was drawn.
Then he re-read the text to better understand the sermon. He read
the Bible repeatedly, and at one moment he admitted to his diary
that he liked to read the New Testament, although that had not
always been true. His Saturdays were usually spent attending
Division, a community meeting, where he participated in discussions
of public issues. As a member of the Sons of Temperance, he
attended their meetings and represented their viewpoint in debates
held at various schools and churches in Woodville and Gauley
Bridge. His pride shines through his diary when he recorded winning
the debate on the question "War vs. Intemperance." He advocated a
war against intemperance.42

Hamilton dutifully logged his daily activities, his work, and
his earnings. Adopting the practical advice of Poor Richard's
Almanac, he arose at 5 a.m. each morning to pursue his health,
wealth, and wisdom. He noted his daily earnings whether they were
$1.50 for surveying, $.60 for ginseng, $1.00 for clerking, $4.50
for a week of teaching young scholars, or $5.50 for a week
surveying a county road. This account of his daily earnings appears
to be an act in his service to a higher calling rather than simply
a reflection of his acquisitive interests, although the two were
not mutually exclusive in Hamilton's thought.43 Yet Hamilton was
not impervious to the county or its people. His travels while
surveying required that he stay overnight in many of the homes of
county residents, and his marriage into the Woods family linked him
to a large family and gave him experience with the problems of
operating a general store. Steeped in local culture, he knew the
county's topography and people well.

Hamilton had become a member of the Fayette County elite. In
1860, he owned real estate valued at six thousand dollars and
personal estate valued at one thousand dollars. This wealth placed
him in the upper 6 percent of the landowners in the county.44 Well
educated, he had been appointed deputy surveyor for the county, and
he had become an educator and an activist in public affairs,
particularly the temperance movement. His family background and his
associations with county leaders made it quite likely that he would
support secession, but his independence of thought, his prior
humiliating experience with military discipline, and his penchant
for analyzing Biblical texts made it less likely that he would
accept the course of secession without question.

Hamilton's diary, however, is striking in its absence of any
reference to the issues hurtling the nation toward war. He does not
mention slavery although he notes the election loss of a powerful,
local slaveowning family, the Tyrees. No reasons are given for
their defeat. In 1858, the proverbial "firebell in the night" began
to ring in Fayete County. Hamilton attended muster for the "first
time in years," and his father was commissioned by the court to
help reorganize the county militia. James began attending "training
sessions" for the Mt. Cove militia and began preparing for a
leadership role, but the death of his father in May 1859 devastated
him. >From that moment, Hamilton's diary entries become
sporadic, and there are no further references to muster or the
militia. From May 1859 until 1861, he appears to be embroiled in
grief and inner reflection.45

In 1861, James Hamilton embraced the "stirring times" caused by
the onslaught of war. Shortly after the firing on Fort Sumter, he
collected arms for the local militia and helped organize the Mt.
Cove Guards. He refreshed his knowledge of military drill and
tactics by studying "Gilham s Tactics," as he prepared himself for
training the militia unit.46 Ironically, Major William Gilham,
author of "Tactics," had been an officer on the court-martial that
dismissed Hamilton from VMI. But Hamilton did not join the
Confederate army. He considered himself a leader and defender of
his local community, one who thought it necessary to have a "little
fight to keep us from spoiling." Believing as so many did that the
war would be over quickly after a battle or two, Hamilton
volunteered to help train the Mt. Cove Guards for the forthcoming
"little fight" with the Lincolnites.47

His letters from camp during June 1861 exude a confidence that
the conflict would be brief, and he enjoyed his day-to-day training
of militia units. >From camp near Charleston he proudly
described his day to his wife:

I stay at Wright's Tavern, get up at 4 o clock and walk two
miles to the lower camp and drill a company an hour before
breakfast. Eat corn bread, hot meat & coffee bald-headed at 10
o clock. Drill again & have bread & meat & meat &
bread for dinner at 4 o clock, take another drill then I walk back
to Charleston for Supper. But I have a pretty good appetite for
camp diet. I would not stay in the tents down at Camp . . . I have
a good bed to sleep on . . . Tyree's company went down to [Camp]
Two Mile last Saturday, a big rain came up and the tents leaked so
badly that both officers and men said they would not stay there so
they came back to town and when I got there they were as happy as
you please.48

During June and July 1861, Hamilton drilled recruits from
Fayette County who were part of the First Kanawha led by Colonel
Christopher Q. Tompkins of Gauley Mount. Later, the unit became
part of the Twenty-second Virginia Infantry under overall command
of General Henry Wise. In July, the battle of Scary Creek convinced
General Wise that he held a strategically untenable position. Wise
then ordered a "retrograde movement" which surrendered Kanawha and
Fayette counties to the Union. This retreat devastated the morale
of the local militia and decimated its numbers. Almost five hundred
men and officers were furloughed, deserted, or simply went home as
General Wise withdrew his Confederate forces from Kanawha and
Fayette counties.49 Wise blamed the "natives" of the region for his
failure. In his official report, he fumed, "the Kanawha Valley is
wholly disaffected and traitorous. It was gone from Charleston to
Pt. Pleasant before I got there. . . . The militia are nothing for
warlike uses here. They are worthless who are true, and there is no
telling who is true. 50 Contrary to Wise's self-serving
explanation, the men went home to Fayette and Kanawha counties not
from disloyalty or a fear of fighting Union soldiers. Instead, they
were angry over inept military leadership which did not provide
them with the means to fight to protect their homes. Some did not
want to leave their home county. Many men who left the army during
this retreat later rejoined the military, some the Union and some
the Confederacy. James B. Hamilton joined neither, but he did go
home and immediately faced a dilemma over his loyalty.

James Hamilton had been caught up in the enthusiasm for war in
Fayette County in 1861. Inspired by that same sentiment, county
officials resolved to spend the county's last cent of credit to
resist any invasion by "a hostile army of northern fanatics." They
promised to "eat roots, and drink water and still fight for our
liberty until death."51 Furthermore, the resolution declared that
any county official friendly to the Union had to resign. This last
proviso threatened Hamilton's position as court-appointed county
surveyor and pressured him to commit himself fully to one side or
the other, a decision that he did not want to make after his
experience with Wise's Legion. Hamilton's immediate problem was the
military threat to his family and property.

Hamilton's property straddled the James River and Kanawha
Turnpike and included a road leading to Miller's Ferry across New
River, thus the Hamilton lands became tactically important to the
military. The location of his home and inn made it unlikely that he
and his family would be simply left alone as he wanted. General
Wise once headquartered at the Hamilton inn, and in August 1861,
Colonel St. George Croghan led his Confederates in battle against
Union forces across the Hamilton lane. Shells from this engagement
hit Hamilton's home as his wife and children huddled inside. Later,
Union soldiers encamped on his land and subjected him to martial
law. For months, Hamilton contended with military forces from both
armies moving across or trying to control his property.52 Both
sides expected his allegiance.

By late 1861, the Union army had firm control of Gauley Bridge.
Since his home was very close to the Union lines, Hamilton's inn
became a natural staging area where supplies brought from Gauley
Bridge and points west could be distributed to residents in the Mt.
Cove District. Partisan warfare in the Fayetteville and Sewell
Mountain districts of the county had blocked routes to the east or
the south and had depleted necessary supplies. Hamilton thus became
an intermediary for citizens in the Mt. Cove District. He helped
them obtain supplies from beyond the Union lines at Gauley Mount,
and he thought his efforts aided his neighbors as well as his
family. To the Mt. Cove community, Hamilton served a necessary
function; to Union officers, he was a man yet to declare his
loyalty; to Confederates, he was a disloyalist who dealt with the
enemy.

James Hamilton committed himself on the question of loyalty
after passage of the Confederate law on "alien enemies." In August
1861, the Confederate Congress enacted a law defining aliens, and
President Jefferson Davis issued regulations to enforce the act.
Under this new law, all male citizens of the United States over age
fourteen living in the Confederate states had forty days to leave
the Confederacy. If a resident stated his intent to become a
citizen of a Confederate state or if he swore an oath of loyalty to
the Confederacy, he was exempted. All persons loyal to the United
States who did not leave within forty days were to be treated as
alien enemies.53 Confederate marshals and officers could arrest and
hold all alien enemies against whom a complaint was lodged, and any
resident who was found to be a threat to the Confederate nation
could be imprisoned.54

Designed as a law to force citizens to choose sides, the act
accelerated the struggle for control of Fayette citizens loyalties.
Union and Confederate officials arrested residents whom they
considered disloyal. By March 1862, Confederates had arrested or
just released twenty-five Fayette civilians while the Union had
arrested fiteen.55 These arrests were made to intimidate residents
into an obedient loyalty. Faced with severe pressure from each
side, James Hamilton swore an oath of loyalty to the United States
in October 1861. Hamilton likely calculated possible threats to his
family's physical and economic well-being prior to his decision,
but once he made the decision, he never wavered in adhering to
it.

For the next one-and-one-half years, Hamilton lived in fear of
arrest by Confederates or of being raided by partisans in the
county. He survived the Confederate recapture of the county in 1862
during the campaign of General William W. Loring. The war, however,
became increasingly ferocious as it approached "total war." Demands
for unconditional loyalty increased in the North and South;
hostages were held by each side; and the will of the civilian
population to fight became an even more important resource for war.
In July 1863, one week after disastrous Confederate losses at
Gettysburg in the east and Vicksburg in the west, scouts from
General Echols's brigade raided Hawk's Nest and arrested James
Hamilton.

Brigadier General John Echols, who had a penchant for
exaggerating the quantity and quality of dangerous subversives,
summarily accused, convicted, and sentenced James Hamilton for
disloyalty prior to any hearing.56 Echols wrote a letter that
accompanied prisoner Hamilton as he was moved under guard to
Lewisburg, Dublin, Lynchburg, then Richmond. Echols declared that
Hamilton was "a most dangerous man to our cause" and should be
confined "during the continuance of the war." Once a student at the
Virginia Military Institute himself, Echols became infuriated at
the notion that a former cadet could be disloyal to the
Confederacy. He also charged Hamilton with providing information
and maps to the enemy, a charge that Echols believed "might" be
proved if he had access to Union-controlled Fayette County.57

As Hamilton was moved from command to command, judgments against
him became even more sensational. He was denounced, without
evidence, as "the most dangerous villain in western Va.," a
"dangerous man" and an "unprincipled rascal" who should "never be
allowed to return to this Dept."58 On August 5, 1863, James
Hamilton had a hearing that determined his fate.

Under Confederate military procedures in 1863, civilian
prisoners arrested by field officers had a hearing before an
appointed military commissioner. This commissioner's report and his
recommendations were then submitted through the adjutant general to
the secretary of war for approval. Major Isaac H. Carrington served
as commissioner examining James Hamilton under oath. After Hamilton
provided particulars about his name, birthplace, age, home, and
education, he was asked why he thought he was arrested. He was told
nothing of specific charges lodged against him, although Carrington
had the Echols letters in his possession. Hamilton surmised that he
had been arrested for "disloyalty" although he complained that he
had not been informed of specific charges. Hamilton was not
questioned about map-making or aiding the enemy. He was asked about
his knowledge of two other prisoners who had been arrested during
the same raid.59

Hamilton vigorously reaffirmed his oath of allegiance to the
United States, and he refused Carrington's offer that he become a
conscript in the Confederate army. On the basis of this hearing,
Major Carrington recommended that James Hamilton be "confined as a
conscript refusing to serve and as a traitorous citizen." Secretary
of War James Seddon later approved the recommendation without
comment. Such decsions on military practices had become routine to
the civilian head of the Confederate Department of War. That
Hamilton had not been informed of charges lodged against him
apparently did not matter. Since he had sworn an oath of loyalty to
the Union, he was an "alien enemy" and a "disloyal Virginian" to be
held in Castle Thunder. In prison, Hamilton became close friends
with William Richmond from Raleigh County.60

William Richmond, a Virginian born into a "respectable family,"
farmed near New River in Raleigh County with his brothers and his
father. Two of his brothers joined Company G of the Twentieth
Virginia Infantry, while William and his brother Allen had been
members of the Virginia militia. As the war became more vicious by
1863, Confederate guerillas accused William and Allen of being
pro-Union. Subsequently, William's property was destroyed. When he
fought back, he and his brother Allen were arrested as "disloyal
persons" and then incarcerated in Castle Thunder.61

Mason Matthews, delegate to the Virginia legislature from
Greenbrier County, intervened to aid the Richmond family, perhaps
hoping to arrange a type of "gentleman s agreement." He offered
testimony as to the impeccable character of the Richmonds, and he
carried a message from the Richmonds father to Major Carrington who
was re-examining the case. After their stint in prison and at the
behest of their father, William and Allen Richmond had expressed a
willingness to serve in the Confederate army. They demanded,
however, one unconditional proviso from their military examiner.
They would take a loyalty oath only if they were both permitted to
join their brothers in the Twentieth Virginia. Inclined initially
to accept the Richmond demand, Carrington then learned of an event
that changed his mind. The Richmonds father had been shot and
killed by "Confederate citizens." On further examination of the
Richmonds, Carrington concluded that they probably intended to
desert once released, so he recommended they continue to be held as
political prisoners. William Richmond survived incarceration in
Castle Thunder and the Salisbury, North Carolina, prison to return
to Raleigh County and resume his life as a farmer.62

William Richmond's entanglement with the loyalty issue and his
arrest were a function of the changing character of war in western
Virginia. As bushwhacking became a common practice, raiders too
often selected the property or the family to attack on what might
be gained from the target. When that happened, loyalty no longer
mattered. Richmond was driven into a pro-Union stance, one that
resulted in his spending two years in Confederate prisons.

Hamilton's arrest, conviction, and imprisonment also raise
delicate issues about civil liberty in the Confederacy. As a
citizen of the United States who had sworn an oath of loyalty to
the Union, Hamilton believed that he was entitled to information
about specific charges against him and a fair trial. He received
neither. Commissioner Carrington's judgment had been effectively
shaped by General Echols's angry indictment. Major Carrington
phrased his reports in language of fact rather than rhetoric, but
in 1863, in some two hundred cases reviewed by Carrington, he
seldom reversed a field officer's recommendation for conviction of
a civilian prisoner. In one case, he recommended release of a
fifty-six-year-old eastern Tennessee man with one blind eye who had
been arrested for farming land owned by a Union man then serving
the Federal army.63 That was an exception.

In most cases, like that of James Hamilton, Carrington simply
modified the charges against the prisoner from disloyalty and
aiding the enemy into charges of being a "traitorous alien enemy"
or of refusing to be a "conscript." These charges against civilians
living in areas claimed by the Confederacy caused prisoners, when
interrogated, to convict themselves of unspecified charges with
their own testimony. James Hamilton s admission of his birthplace,
residency, education, and occupation made him a Virginian to
Carrington. Hamilton ath of loyalty to the United States made him
an alien enemy. When Hamilton refused to break his oath and be
conscripted into the Confederate military, he violated Confederate
conscription laws and was then jailed as a "civilian prisoner."
From the Confederate viewpoint, Hamilton owed his "natural
allegiance" to Virginia because he lived there all his life.

The civil liberty problem, of course, should not be blamed on
Carrington, a single individual. Initially, the appointment of
military commissioners to review cases was part of a process to
protect civil liberties, but the appointment of military men of a
lesser rank to review "disloyalists" arrested by generals such as
Henry Wise, John Floyd, or John Echols was certain to subvert the
process. Undoubtedly, there are cases where the military
commissioner defied a senior officer ordering the arrest of
civilians, but the course of the war itself pushed the Confederacy
toward more extreme measures in order to survive.64

That military interests would take precedence over civil liberty
is attested to by the final act in the Hamilton case. James
Hamilton remained in prison, first in Castle Thunder then in the
Salisbury military prison. He continually protested is imprisonment
and demanded specific charges, a hearing, and a trial. Once he
offered to put up one-half his estate if a Charleston attorney
would appeal his case, but he adamantly refused to dishonor his
oath of loyalty to the Union and become a "Galvanized Rebel." His
letters from prison reveal a man with faith in his ability to
withstand prison hardships and a belief in his eventual
exoneration.65

In April 1864, twenty-one citizens of the Mt. Cove district
petitioned Governor William Smith of Virginia requesting Hamilton's
release on grounds of his being needed in the community, that he
had committed no crime, that he had not been charged, and that he
was needed by his wife and three children.66 The petitioners could
have requested the new government of West Virginia or the
government of the United States to intervene, but they did not.
They appealed directly to the governor of Virginia and asked him
bluntly whether or not he had "control of the Citizen or State
prisoners who had been taken from this county [Fayette] to
Richmond."67 This question of who controlled civilian prisoners
raised the sensitive political question about who held authority in
the Confederacy, the state or the national government. In response,
Governor Smith ordered a review of Hamilton's case, particularly
the charges lodged against him.68

From April to September 1864, the case review moved slowly
through the Virginia and Confederate bureaucracies. Eventually, it
reached the desk of Major Isaac Carrington. Carrington noted on the
petition that General Echols in 1863 had "earnestly requested" that
Hamilton not be released, and he attached a copy of his examination
of Hamilton to the petition. On September 3, 1864, Governor Smith
decided that he "was satisfied from the papers in this case that
Hamilton should not be released."69 Military preferences prevailed
over civil liberty. Twenty days later, James Hamilton died of
illness in Salisbury military prison.

Hamilton's death marked the loss of a serious, thoughtful, and
responsible man. The disregard of his demands to be heard and
fairly tried stand as an indictment of Confederate claims to
scrupulous constitutional liberty. The Confederacy's failure to
hear and try fairly James Hamilton is directly linked to its rising
demand for loyal commitments from its citizens at a time when its
military had suffered severe reversals. The individual cases from
Fayette County reflect the changes in Confederate treatment of
civilians.

How to proceed against "suspicious" or "disloyal" persons
arrested by the military or by local officials became a proble by
July 1861. Officials drew a sharp distinction between soldiers and
civilians, but initially, civilians, except when spies, were to be
tried in civil courts. If a resident was not a citizen of a
Confederate state, that resident would be considered an "alien
resident" who "owes allegiance to the State which gives him
protection." The theoretical proposition was that the state was the
indivisible sovereign unit of political authority for treating
civilian dissent. A person born in the state would have a "natural
allegiance" to it.70 How civilian dissent actually was handled
provoked sharp disagreements between state and Confederate
governments, and actual practices were shaped and reshaped by local
military commanders.

During 1861-62, Confederate generals used three methods of
treating civil dissent in Fayette County: the "gentleman's
agreement," the "arrest to intimidate" practice, and the "arrest to
eradicate political behavior" practice. A prime example of the
"gentleman's agreement" in Fayette County was the case of the
Tompkins family.

When Confederate Colonel Christopher Q. Tompkins assumed field
command of the Twenty-second Virginia Infantry, his wife Ellen
Wilkins Tompkins and their younger children remained on their
estate at Gauley Mount about three miles east of Gauley Bridge. A
lavish estate with a large dwelling, a huge barn, numerous
outbuildings, some serving as slave quarters, and a vineyard tended
by a German-born vine dresser provided comfort for the Tompkins
after they had moved to the county from Richmond. Once the Union
army forced General Wise to retreat, the Tompkins estate fell into
Union hands. Colonel Tompkins then wrote directly to Union generals
Jacob Cox and William Rosecrans requesting protection for his wife,
family, and estate.71 Both Union generals made generous efforts to
protect and provide for the Tompkins family and estate.

Gauley Mount became a major campsite for Union forces operating
in the county. A few Union soldiers complained about the favorable
treatment of the Tompkins, perhaps irritated by constant requests
for services from Ellen Tompkins, but they may have benefited from
Confederate reluctance to fire upon the estate owned by one of
their officers. In October 1861, it became apparent that Gauley
Mount would not be soon returned to Confederate control, so the
Tompkins family moved to Richmond protected by safe passage orders
issued by General Rosecrans. Union pickets manning the outposts on
the turnpike to Lewisburg must have been startled to see a caravan
passing eastward comprised of a male wagonmaster supervising a
carriage, two four-horse-drawn wagons, a cart of furniture, and
Ellen Tompkins with two sons, three female slaves and their five
children, two puppies, and a two chickens.72

This "gentleman's agreement" approach to civil liberty was not
unusual. Its origins rest in the friendships existing in the
regular United States army prior to civil conflict, and it links to
military traditions of "honor" among "officers and gentlemen." The
practical side of the idea is that the situation might shortly be
reversed and the honor returned. It does, however, reflect a strong
class bias. Tompkins requested Cox to treat his family and servants
with "treatment befitting their stations."73 For people without the
Tompkins's status, treatment by the military was less benign.

Generals Wise and Floyd, irreconcilable on most issues, used an
"arrest to intimidate" practice against Fayette citizens suspected
of disloyalty in 1861. It differed sharply from the "gentleman's
agreement." George Hunt was among the first county residents to
experience arrest under this practice. He was among the thirty-nine
prisoners sent eastward by General Wise from Fayette and Kanawha
counties in mid-1861. Shortly after the prisoners reached Salem,
the commonwealth attorney complained to Governor John Letcher that
the men had bee jailed without warrant or "legal proceedings
against them." Warning that a writ of habeas corpus brought before
a local judge would lead to the release of the men, the attorney
asked for prompt instructions.74 Since the Secretary of War's
office had been deciding such issues on a case-by-case basis, it
became apparent that a new procedure had to be devised. Adopted was
the practice of appointing a military commissioner in various
regions to review the cases. In the meantime, the secretary of war
permitted political prisoners, if they had not committed an overt
act of treason, to be released upon their taking an oath of
loyalty.75

Designed in part to offset dissent, this policy of releasing
prisoners who agreed to take a loyalty oath legitimized the
military practice of arresting "suspicious persons" and holding
them without charges as Wise and Floyd had done. Floyd, however,
became furious when he learned that many of the men whom he had
arrested were to be released. He declared that one Fayette County
man named Odell was "very dangerous" to the Confederacy, although
there was confusion as to which Odell was dangerous, and Floyd
needed "more time" to collect evidence against the man.76 Floyd
continued to arrest all "suspicious persons" residing within his
lines, and he railed against the new policy, once angrily
recommending that "under no circumstances should a traitor be let
loose upon the country . . . except he proves himself innocent."
That prisoners had been arrested without warrant, without charges,
and without evidence did not deter Floyd who was convinced that his
army had not arrested a man unless his "liberty is dangerous to
public safety."77

In western Virginia where loyalties were sharply divided, one
intent of the Wise-Floyd practice was intimidation of dissenters.
Once arrested, the men were removed from the county. Eventually
they faced a choice--swear an oath of loyalty or remain imprisoned.
The effect of this practice was to create two new wartime classes
of civilians, those swearing loyalty to Virginia while imprisoned
and those who refused. In 1861, the situation was eloquently
described by a Virginia commissioner after examining arrested men
from Fayette, Greenbrier, and Raleigh counties:

The foregoing nine men ought in my opinion to be discharged,
and I respectfully suggest that a general order be issued
forbidding suspected persons to be brought to Richmond until they
have been examined by a colonel at least, who, if he sends them on,
shall certify the charge and the evidence. At present the practice
is for any scouting party or other party of soldiers to take a man
from his home, very often without telling him [why], and without
examination he is sent to Richmond, in some cases a distance of 350
miles, without even a change of clothing, and when the poor
creatures are discharged here they are utterly penniless.78

Such a practice, the commissioner continued, creates
"unnecessary expense" for the government and "dissatisfaction among
the people" who need to be "protected from oppression."79

Increasing arrests of "suspicious people" accelerated the
passage by the Confederate Congress of the Alien Enemies Act.80
Targeting Union loyalists and the uncommitted, it was hoped this
policy might reduce the numbers of civilian dissenters. Its
immediate effect was to provoke an exodus from some districts. One
military district had so many applications to depart Virginia under
this law that its worried commander requested clarification as to
what he should do. He was told to let them all go unless he thought
it would be "dangerous to the country." If the refugee movement
posed a military danger, refugees should be required to depart the
Confederacy via Tennessee.81

In Fayette County, raiders sometimes had the specific political
objective of eradicating the political movement toward the
"counterfeit State of Kanawha." This was a variation on the "arrest
to intimidte" practice. Otey Fellows and Kennedy Cassady were among
civilians ensnared by raiders who wanted to destroy the movement
toward West Virginia statehood. Another typical political-military
raid against civilians was that led by Colonel Clarkson under
orders from General Floyd in October 1861. Clarkson led 160 cavalry
through Fayette and Kanawha counties. In addition to disrupting
Union supply lines and collecting intelligence, the raid had a
political intent. Floyd timed the raid to disrupt "the first
election of the counterfeit state of Kanawha."82 Clarkson's men
disrupted the election on Paint Creek and Cabin Creek, captured the
poll books, and arrested men suspected of taking part in the
election. Forty men were taken from their homes, brought to General
Floyd s camp, then later sent east.83 These arrests provoked Union
General Rosecrans to send an emissary under a flag of truce to
Floyd requesting a "stop to the abhorrent practice of kidnapping
unarmed citizens." Rosecrans further offered to return "certain
hostages now in our possession."84 "Gentlemen's agreements"
declined as hostage holding and intimidating arrests became the
norm.

By the time Samuel Koontz, William Richmond, and James Hamilton
were arrested, there had been another modification in Confederate
military practices relating to civil liberty. No longer was it
feasible, given the rising demand for manpower, to justify the
release of a man simply because he was willing to swear an oath of
loyalty. To be released from Castle Thunder in Richmond, Koontz or
Hamilton would have been required not only to swear loyalty but to
agree to enter the Confederate military and serve faithfully. By
1863, not only "disloyal" citizens were offered an option to serve
in the military; captured Union soldiers were offered enticements
to serve and foreign-born nationals were recruited into needed
occupations to sustain the war effort.85 The notion of a "natural
allegiance" to a state receded as the Confederacy had to resort to
additional resources for war in order to survive.86 In Fayette
County, organized warfare gave way to "bushwhacker" warfare where
loyalties often were defined only by family relationships.87

Notes

1. Turner cited West Virginia once in his famous collection of
essays. Unequal apportionment in Virginia between East and West, he
argued, led to a long struggle, and the "independent state of West
Virginia remains a monument of the contest." Frederick Jackson
Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York: Holt
& Co., 1920), 114. This East-West struggle theme is in the
following works: Granville D. Hall, The Rending of Virginia
(Chicago: Mayer & Miller, 1901); Theodore F. Lang, Loyal
West Virginia, 1862-1865 (Baltimore: Deutsch Publishing Co.,
1895); Virgil A. Lewis, ed., How West Virginia Was Made
(Charleston: News-Mail, 1909); Edward Conrad Smith, The
Borderland in the Civil War (New York: Macmillan, 1927); James
M. Callahan, Semi-Centennial History of West Virginia
(Morgantown: Semi-Centennial Commission, 1913); Charles H. Ambler,
West Virginia: The Mountain State (New York: Prentice-Hall,
1940); and George E. Moore, A Banner in the Hills: West Virginia
s Statehood (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963).

2. Charles A. and Mary R. Beard, The Rise of American
Civilization (New York: Macmillan, 1927). The Beards dropped
the "Second American Revolution" as an interpretative framework in
their later work, but it remains a powerful idea. See Emory
M. Thomas, The Confederate Nation, 1861-1865 (New York:
Harper & Row, 1979), 221-23.

3. For a comprehensive historiographical article on these
issues, see John E. Stealey, III, "In the Shadow of Ambler
and Beyond: A Historiography of West Virginia Politics" in West
Virginia History: Critical Essays on the Literature, ed. by
Ronald L. Lewis and John C. Hennen, Jr. (Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt,
1993), 1-42.

4. Richard O. Curry, A House Divided: A Study of Statehood
Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia
(Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pitsburgh Press, 1964), 6-12, 136-40. For
reservations about Curry's conclusions, see Otis K. Rice,
West Virginia: A History (Lexington: Univ. Press of
Kentucky, 1985), 149. A thoughtful, highly interpretative work is
John A. Williams's West Virginia: A Bicentennial History
(New York: Norton, 1976).

5. Kenneth Noe, Southwest Virginia's Railroad: Modernization
and the Sectional Crisis (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press,
1994), 110. See also Noe, "Appalachia's Civil War Genesis:
Southwest Virginia as Depicted by Northern and European Writers,
1825-1865," West Virginia History 50(1991): 91-108.
Modernization theory also can be applied to understand the culture
and values of northwestern county residents transformed by the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. An unresolved issue remains about the
social role of technology as represented by the railroad. Was it
simply a cultural transmitter bringing change to traditional
locales, or was it an active agent in political-cultural
realignments between the two regions it connects? In the
southwestern counties an accommodation with slavery occurred and in
the northwestern counties free labor became the norm, yet the
economies of each region were being transformed by the
railroads.

6. John W. Shaffer, "Loyalties in Conflict: Union and
Confederate Sentiment in Barbour County," West Virginia
History 50(1991): 109-28.

7. William F. Duker, A Constitutional History of Habeas
Corpus (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980); Samuel Klaus, ed.
The Milligan Case (1929; reprint, New York: Da Capo Press,
1970); Georgia Lee Tatum, Disloyalty in the Confederacy
(Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1934). For a textbook
discussion of the three cases, see James M. McPherson,
Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction (New York:
Knopf, 1982).

12. Ibid., 6, n. 8 and 11, n. 13. Neely notes the "four
obscure soldiers arrested" who Frank L. Owsley named in his
State Rights in the Confederacy (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1925). Earlier historians often argued questions relating to
the legal, theoretical, and constitutional origins and
justifications for habeas corpus and its suspension with little
concern for the individuals enmeshed in the day-to-day application
of the process.

13. Neely, Confederate Bastille, 5-6, 14.

14. Union practice on civil liberty will be occasionally
mentioned herein, but the focus of this study is upon Confederate
practices. A study of Union loyalism and Union policies and
practices in the county remains to be done.

15. Census of the Population, Eighth Census of the United
States, 1860 (National Archives Microfilm Publication M653),
Fayette County, hereafter referred to as 1860 Census.

16. Charles A. Goddard, ed. "War Times in Mountain Cove: Letters
of Nancy Hunt to Refugee Friends in [New] York State, 1862-1865,"
in Roy Bird Cook Collection, West Virginia and Regional History
Collection, West Virginia University, Morgantown, hereafter
referred to as Cook Coll., WVRHC; and Ruth Hunt Creger, Victor, WV,
to the author, 15 August 1991.

17. Census of the Population, Eighth Census of the United
States, Social Statistics, 1860 (National Archives Microfilm
Publication T1132), Fayette County, hereafter referred to as 1860
Social Statistics. According to the social statistics in the
census, the Methodist Church South could accommodae a total of
twenty-five hundred members, the Methodist Church North only one
thousand. Studies correlating membership in the various
denominations with allegiances North and South after 1861 would be
helpful, but exact numbers of pro-Union and pro-Confederate
residents are likely to be as elusive as the numbers who served in
the opposing military units. For the latter, see Jack L.
Dickinson, Tattered Uniforms and Bright Bayonets: West Virginia
s Confederate Soldiers (Huntington: Marshall Univ. Library,
1995), 403-10.

18. 1860 Census.

19. For the names of masters, their occupations, and number of
slaves owned by each, see Census of the Population, Eighth
Census of the United States, Slave Schedule, 1860 (National
Archives Microfilm Publication M653), Fayette County. The
government did not record names of slaves in the census, only their
age, sex, and color in addition to the owners names. There were 133
male and 138 female slaves in the county in 1860.

20. The following chart from census data demonstrates the wealth
range of Fayette County heads of households. There are wide
differences of wealth in this Appalachian county.

Fayette County, Real Estate Values by District
Household, 1860

Number of Households by District

Range of Value

Kanawha

Fayetteville

Mt. Cove

Sewell Mt.

Over $25,000

2

1

0

0

$5,000-25,000

11

28

11

12

$2,000-5,000

11

54

48

26

$100-2,000

62

164

160

54

None

106

127

97

57

21. Twenty-two years of age at the outbreak of war, Gus lived on
his father's estate. Judge Bailey owned an estate valued at $7,000,
including two slaves. Whether the holding of slaves influenced
Bailey's loyalty is not known. For memoirs of Fayette County
residents loyal to Virginia who volunteered for military service in
1861, see the stories of J. H. Abbot, W. F. Bahlmann, and B.
H. Jones in J. T. Peters and H. B. Carden, History of Fayette
County, West Virginia (Charleston: Jarrett Printing, 1926),
215-42.

22. This group has received study. See William B.
Hesseltine, Civil War Prisons: A Study in War Psychology
(1930; reprint, New York: Ungar, 1964)and Civil War Prisons
(Kent, OH: Kent State Univ. Press, 1992).

23. The church building was valued at $1,000. These figures are
probably inflated. 1860 Social Statistics.

24. It is not known precisely where the minister lived, but he
was charged with disloyalty for being a member of the Heroes of
America, a pro-Union group, and was accused of saying it was a
"fine thing" that soldiers of the 22nd Virginia in 1864 were
deserting in large numbers. This infantry unit had been drawn in
part from Fayette County. Tatum, Disloyalty, 152.

25. William E. Cox, "The Civil War Letters of Laban Gwinn,"
West Virginia History 43(Spring 1982): 227-45.

26. For the Hunt and Hopping families, see 1860 Census
and Goddard, "War Times in Mountain Cove," in Cook Coll.,
WVRHC.

27. Avidly pro-Union but terrified of Confederate partisans,
Nancy Hunt complained of the insatiable demand for goods by units
from each army. Goddard, "War Times in Mountain Cove," in Cook
Coll., WVRHC.

28. 1860 Census. James S. Cassady represented Fayette County in
the first Wheeling convention, and after 1866, he served as clerk
of the circuit court and county superintendent of schools. Peters
and Carden, History, 742-43, 748.

29. The "Yankee" was named Ticknor, but no other information
about him is available in The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate
Armies (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1880-91), hereafter referred to
as O. R. For details on Fellows and Cassady and the
quotations, see O. R., series 2, vol. 2, 1477-78. Cassady is
spelled three ways in the records, and Fellows is often
interchanged with Fellers.

30. Peters and Carden, History, 194, 476 and 1860 Census.
For the military commissioner's examination of Kennedy Cassady,
see O. R., series 2, vol. 2, 1477-78.

31. O. R., series 2, vol. 2, 1478.

32. "Claim of Samuel B. Koontz, 1866" in Adjutant General s
Records, Militia, Fayette County, West Virginia State Archives,
Charleston, hereafter referred to as AGR, WVSA. In this petition
for back pay and allowances, Koontz tells his story. It is
corroborated by eight witnesses.

33. General Echols to Major General Winder, 30 July 1863, File
C-581, Record Group 109, Department of War, Collection of
Confederate Records, 1863, National Archives, hereafter referred to
as RG 109, NA.

34. Peters and Carden, History, 675. See the story
of Jacob Koontz.

35. Koontz, "Claim," AGR, WVSA. Koontz owned a farm valued at
$2,000 in the northeast section of Fayette County near the Gauley
River where he lived with his wife and four children.

36. Daniel Crofts's perceptive studies of Southampton County,
Virginia, with comparisons and contrasts of two diarists are
outstanding examples of what may be done with diaries and county
history. Crofts, "Southampton County Diarists in the Civil War Era:
Elliott L. Story and Daniel W. Cobb," Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 98(1990): 537-612 and Old Southampton:
Politics and Society in a Virginia County (Charlottesville:
Univ. Press of Virginia, 1992).

37. The original Hamilton homeplace was located approximately
three thousand feet east of the current Hawk's Nest overlook. The
property included the promontory known as Lover's Leap, and it
later encompassed 165 acres along Mill Creek. Miller s Ferry was
built at the mouth of Mill Creek on New River. Extensive
information on the Hamilton family is located in the Hamilton
Family Papers, 1784-1877, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond,
VA, hereafter referred to as Hamilton Papers, VHS. See also
Peters and Carden, History, 93-96 and A. W. Hamilton, "Hawks
Nest and Lover's Leap Cliffs: Their History," Fayetteville
Tribune, 12 September 1935. James B. Hamilton's sons sold the
remaining 200 acres of the estate in April 1925.

46. William Gilham, Manual of Instruction for the Volunteers
and Militia of the United States (Philadelphia: Desilver,
1861). This manual was also printed and distributed in the
Confederacy.

47. J. B. Hamilton to Dear Wife, 18 June 1861, Hamilton Papers,
VHS.

48. Ibid.

49. Tim McKinney, The Civil War in Fayette County, West
Virginia (Charleston: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company,
1988), 29-30; Terry D. Lowry, 22nd Virginia Infantry
(Lynchburg, VA: H. E. Howard, 1988), 16-17. Within a few months,
Colonel Christopher Q. Tompkins, commander of the 22nd, resigned in
disgust at the constant squabbling between generals Wise and Floyd.
He was furious at General Floyd for ordering artillery fire on the
Union encampment at Gauley Mount, the Tompkins estate on the west
side of Gauley Mountain where Tompkins's wife and children were
still living. Hamilton and Tompkins remained friends and Tompkins
occasionally supplied Hamilton with money while Hamilton was
imprisoned. See Hamilton to Tompkins, 3 June 1864 and
Tompkins to Mrs. Hamilton, 27 November 1864, Hamilton Papers,
VHS.

50. General Wise to General Robert E. Lee in O. R.,
series 1, vol. 2, 1012.

51. Peters and Carden, History, 213-14 and McKinney,
Civil War, 21.

52. Diary entries labeled 1863 in Peters and Carden,
History, 211-12, are incorrectly dated. These events took
place in 1861. By August 1863, Hamilton was in prison and Colonel
St. George Croghan had been killed in action. Alexander W.
Hamilton, "Recollections of Wartime Homes along the Midland Trail,"
Fayette Tribune, 23 March 1932.

53. The law did not apply to residents of Delaware, Maryland,
Kentucky, Missouri, the District of Columbia, the territories of
Arizona and New Mexico, or the Indian Territory south of
Kansas.

54. O. R., series 2, vol. 2, 1369-70.

55. McKinney, Civil War, 136-39. These numbers show only
one moment in time and do not count men held for a short period
then released or those arrested later such as Koontz, Richmond, and
Hamilton.

56. In 1864, Echols believed that large numbers of dangerous
subversives lurked in a growing membership in Heroes of America, a
pro-Union group. See Noe, Southwest Virginia's
Railroad, 135-36.

57. Brigadier General John Echols to Major Charles Stringfellow,
15 July 1863 and to Major General Winder, 30 July 1863, RG 109,
NA.

58. Major Charles S. Stringfellow to Major Davidson, 18 July
1863, in ibid.

59. Major I. H. Carrington, Report, in ibid. Samuel B.
Koontz and Lantz K. Harrow from the Mt. Cove District of Fayette
County were also arrested in the raid. Harrow and Koontz survived
the war in Confederate prisons. See Koontz, "Claim," AGR,
WVSA.

61. "Report #246, William and Allen Richmond," 11 September
1863, in ibid.

62. Mason Matthews, deposition, in ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. For discussion of the Peebles case, in which the military
subverted the civil courts in 1864, see Robert L. Kerby,
Kirby Smith s Confederacy: The Trans-Mississippi South,
1863-1865 (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1972), 270-81.

72. Tompkins, "Colonel's Lady," 416. Even Ellen Tompkins puzzled
about the attention and protection given to her and her family by
men who would likely in a few hours or days try to kill her husband
in battle.

73. Ibid., 390-91.

74. O. R., series 2, vol. 2, 1373.

75. Ibid., 1373-74, 1384-85.

76. Ibid., 1391, 1433.

77. General Floyd to Secretary of War J. P. Benjamin, 19
November 1861, in ibid., series 1, vol. 5, 287.

78. Ibid., series 2, vol. 2, 1431.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid., 1369-70.

81. Ibid., 1376.

82. Ibid., series 1, vol. 5, 924.

83. Ibid., 377-78, 924.

84. General Rosecrans to General McClellan, 19 November 1861, in
ibid., 656-57. The holding of hostages for possible exchange
or leveraged advantage became routine for both sides in the
conflict. Rosecrans's comment also indicates that Union forces had
been arresting civilians.

85. On 17 October 1863, Major Carrington recommended that
seventy-six prisoners, "foreign nationals," take the loyalty oath
and be put to work under any "responsible person." On the same day
he recommended that eight Union deserters take the oath of loyalty
and be enlisted in General John Imboden's command. File 831, RG
109, NA.

86. The most radical redefinition of resources was the 1865
Confederate law permitting slaves to become soldiers. James M.
McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New
York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1988) 831-37.

87. There is a debate among historians as to the origins and
characteristics of the "bushwhacker" war in western Virginia. The
dispute is related to interpretations of "total war" and "hard
war." A forthcoming article by Kenneth Noe examines the Union army
and guerilla warfare in western Virginia in 1861-62. See
also Mark Grimsley, The Hard Hand of War: Union Military
Policy Toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865 (Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995); Michael Fellman, Inside War: The
Guerilla Conflict in Missouri During the Civil War (New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 1989); and Mark Neely, "Was the Civil War a
Total War?," Civil War History 37(March 1991): 5-28.